Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

charitable purposes within the meaning of the substantive clause of section 4(3)(i).” 17. Thus, if a property is held under trust, and such property is a business, the case would fall under Section 11

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

charitable institution or hospital, within one year; (b) in any other case, within six months, from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been levied or charged or which has been short-levied or part paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13 shall apply accordingly. Technically, none of the provisions contained in amended section 2(15), 11, 12 and 13 are complied in this case hence the claim of exemption of the assessee company is not entertainable. (16). Membership of the assessee company: Vide para

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter To Be Referred As “The Act”) Against The Order Dated 16.07.2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A, Chandigarh (Hereinafter To Be Referred As “The Itat”) In Ita No. 510/Chd/2010 - M/S Young Scholars Educational Society, Barnala Vs Cit, Patiala, Whereby The Order Dated 26.03.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala (Hereinafter To Be Referred As “The Commissioner”) Was Quashed & The Varinder Singh 2024.05.13 10:09 I Attest To The Accuracy & Authencity Of This Order/Judgment

11 and 12 shall apply to a trust or institution, where the application is made under— (a) sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1), from the assessment year from which such trust or institution was earlier granted registration; (b) sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1), from the first of the assessment year

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd.,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

charitable activity has been defined. While cancelling the registration under Section 12AA(3) of 1961 Act, reliance was placed upon judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Children Book Trust, (1992) 3 SCC 390 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in SUNIL CHANDER 2026.02.27 17:11

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the `income’ under section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6- 1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 13(1)(b) of the Act.?” 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a charitable trust registered for the community and the exemption (2 of 11

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

11. In pursuance to the remand, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2015, allowed the appeal of the assessee-Trust. The Tribunal relied upon its decision in the case of Kapurthala Improvement Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.732/Asr/2013 for assessment year 2009-10. The representative of the department agreed before the Tribunal that the appeal was covered

Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

11(2) of the Act?” The assessee is a Trust formed for charitable purposes by a deed of trust dated 17.11.1995. The objects of the Trust were mentioned in clause 3 of the deed of trust and they include upliftment of weaker sections

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s.R.A.K.Ceramics India Private Limited

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a charitable Trust. It has received money as donation and shown the same in Income and Expenditure account. For the Assessment Years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the Assessing Officer has denied the 6 benefit of Section 11

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A of the Act. For the assessment year 1985-86, it filed return disclosing loss of Rs. 15,76,880, before the ITO, Ward A, Circle II, Cuttack. The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into account amounts receivable but not received. The Assessing Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax III,. vs. Sri Sudhir Sanghi

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A of the Act. For the assessment year 1985-86, it filed return disclosing loss of Rs. 15,76,880, before the ITO, Ward A, Circle II, Cuttack. The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into account amounts receivable but not received. The Assessing Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri.G.Sanjay Chowdary

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11 and 12 of the Act. As already submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant authority is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the KUDA 1987, the object of the appellant authority is planning and promoting and securing the development of Hubli Dharwad Urban area and for that purpose to acquire, hold, manage and dispose

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

3) to the extent that they represent outgoings for purposes other than those of the trust. The amounts spent or appliedfor the purposes ofthe trust fi-om out of the income computed in the aforesaid manner, should be not less than 75 per cent. of the latter, if the trust is to get the fiill benefit ofthe exemption u/s. 11

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2 (15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility ie., the fourth limb of the definition of charitable purpose contained in section 2 (15). Hence, such entities will not be eligible for exemption under section 11 or under section

AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

trust or charitable institution is invested or deposited before first of March, 1983, otherwise thzrn in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in Section 11 (5), continue to remain so invested or deposited after 3C.11.1983, the assessee sha1l not be entitled to the benefit of exemption. 10 (2018) 9 SCC 1 10 13. In the instant

M/s. PCL-STICCO Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands dismissed

Trust for seeking exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the activities of the said Board. In the present case also (3 of 4) [ITA-389/2011] learned counsel for the appellant had sought to contend that since the agricultural produce marketing committees, the assessees herein, have been claiming the benefit of Section

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

11 of the Act' 196 1 in view of violation of section 1 I (5) of the Act, 1 96 1 ' ::lS:: I,SK.J & LNA I 30. The Dethi High Court in DIT (Dxempr,"r,,1,"!*))'r:::;::rt::: Trust,r deart with an issue of whefier the assessee violated Section t3(txcxii) read with Section r3(3